Gittin 94

Chapter 94

א טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר של עובד כוכבים פטור ושל ישראל חייב
1 <i>tebel</i> and hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tebel is produce from which tithe and other dues have not yet been separated. Hullin is produce which may be consumed without scruple by laymen. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר יש ברירה ומר סבר אין ברירה אבל דכולי עלמא יש קנין לעובד כוכבים בא"י להפקיע מיד מעשר
2 are inextricably mixed up in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they each take the produce of a separate half of the field. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג הכא נמי בסוריא וקסבר כיבוש יחיד לא שמיה כיבוש
3 This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that the part belonging to the heathen is exempt [from tithe], and the part belonging to the Israelite is subject to it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ter. II. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אמר רב חייא בר אבין ת"ש המוכר שדהו לעובד כוכבים לוקח ומביא ביכורים מפני תיקון העולם מפני תיקון העולם אין מדאורייתא לא
4 Now [are we not to say that] the extent of their difference consists in this, that the one authority [R. Simeon] holds that a distinction can be made retrospectively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is bererah', (v. Glos.). I.e., we suppose that the part which the heathen took eventually was intended for him from the beginning. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אמר רב אשי שתי תקנות הוו מעיקרא הוו מייתי מדאורייתא כיון דחזו דקא מקרי ומזבני דסברי בקדושתייהו קיימן תקינו להו דלא ליתו
5 while the other holds that no distinction can be made retrospectively, but both are agreed that a heathen can own land in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refutes Rabbah. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו כיון דחזו דמאן דלא סגי ליה מזבן וקא משתקען ביד עובדי כוכבים הדר תקינו להו דליתו
6 — Here too we are dealing with land in Syria, and [R. Simeon] took the view that the annexation of an individual is not legally regarded as annexation. R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Come and hear. IF ONE SELLS HIS FIELD TO A HEATHEN, HE MUST BUY FROM HIM THE FIRSTFRUITS AND TAKE THEM TO JERUSALEM, TO PREVENT ABUSES. That is to say, the reason is to prevent abuses, but the Torah itself does not prescribe this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., according to the Torah, the heathen is the legal owner, and therefore tithe need not be brought, which refutes Rabbah. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז איתמר המוכר שדהו לפירות ר' יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא ריש לקיש אמר מביא ואינו קורא
7 — R. Ashi replied: There were two regulations. At first they [the sellers of the fields] used to bring the firstfruits as enjoined in the Torah. When [the Sages] saw that they made the recital [over them]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXVI, 1-11. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח רבי יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ר"ל אמר מביא ואינו קורא קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי
8 and still sold [fields], being under the impression that the fields still retained their holiness, they ordained that [the firstfruits] should not be brought. When they saw that those who were short of money still sold and the fields remained in the hands of the heathen, they ordained that they should be brought.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they should be impelled to buy the fields back. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל (דברים כו, יא) ולביתך מלמד שאדם מביא ביכורי אשתו וקורא
9 It has been stated: If a man sells his field in respect of the produce only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the understanding that the purchaser is to acquire the produce for a certain number of years but not to become owner of the soil. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י א"ל שאני התם דכתיב ולביתך
10 R. Johanan says that [the purchaser] brings the firstfruits and makes the recital [over them],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXVI, 1-11. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא ואיכא דאמרי איתיביה ר"ש בן לקיש לר' יוחנן ולביתך מלמד שאדם מביא ביכורי אשתו וקורא התם הוא דכתיב ולביתך אבל בעלמא לא אמר ליה טעמא דידי נמי מהכא קאמינא
11 while Resh Lakish says that he brings them but makes no recital.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the recital contains the words the fruit of the ground which thou, O Lord, hast given me, which could be said with propriety only by the owner of the soil. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב איתיביה היה בא בדרך וביכורי אשתו בידו ושמע שמתה אשתו מביא וקורא מתה אין לא מתה לא
12 R. Johanan who says that he brings and recites is of the opinion that the possession of the increment is equivalent to possession of the [parent] body, while Resh Lakish who says that he brings without reciting is of opinion that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As appears later, the difference here between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish in respect to firstfruits refers to the time when the law of Jubilee was no longer in force, i.e., after the tribes of Reuben and Gad were carried off by Sennacherib (v. 2 Kings XV, 29) till the rebuilding of the Second Temple. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג ה"ה דאע"ג דלא מתה ומתה אצטריכא ליה סד"א ליגזור משום דרבי יוסי בר חנינא
13 R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following]: [And thou shalt rejoice in all the good which the Lord hath given to thee] and to thy house:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 11. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד דאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא בצרן ושגרן ביד שליח ומת שליח בדרך מביא ואינו קורא שנאמר (דברים כו, ב) ולקחת והבאת עד שתהא לקיחה והבאה באחד קמ"ל
14 this teaches that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the so-called 'property of mulug' (v. Glos.) which belonged to the wife but of which the husband had the management and usufruct. 'House' here as in many cases is taken by the Rabbis as equivalent to 'wife'. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר המוכר שדהו
15 and makes the recital! — Resh Lakish rejoined: There is a special reason there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the firstfruits are brought by one who does not own the soil. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> because the text says 'his house'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah has made a special exception in the case of the wife's produce. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> According to another report, Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan [by quoting to him]: 'And to thy house:' this shows that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife and makes the recital. This, [continued Resh Lakish,] is the rule in the case of the wife, because the text says and to thy house, but in other cases not! — R. Johanan replied: I derive my reason also from the same verse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Johanan takes the case of the wife as being not exceptional but typical. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> He [then] raised an objection [from the following]: 'If while he was on the road bringing the firstfruits of his wife he heard that his wife had died, he brings them and makes the recital,' which means, [I take it], that if she did not die he does not make the recital?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably because his relation to the field is still that of purchaser. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — No, [he replied]; the rule is the same even if she did not die, but it had to be stated also in regard to the case of her dying, [for this reason]. It might have occurred to us that [in this case] we should as a precaution prohibit [the husband from reciting] on account of the ruling of R. Jose b. Hanina who laid down that if a man gathered his grapes and commissioned another man to bring them [to Jerusalem] and the person commissioned died on the way, he [himself] brings them but does not make the recital, because it says, and thou shalt take&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 2 and 10. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and thou shalt bring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is implied in the text, which thou shalt bring (ibid) cf. verse 10. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> which implies that the taking and the bringing must be performed by the same person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here the husband having in the interval been transformed from a purchaser into an heir is in a way no longer the same person. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> We are therefore told [that we do not take this precaution]. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish are herein true to their own principles, as stated elsewhere: If a man sells his field